A workflow is understood quite generally as a processing operation composed of several operating steps, undertaken by one or more people responsible for the processing. The operating steps usually have to be executed in a previously defined order. Execution of a new operating step normally assumes that one or more preceding operating steps have been fully executed. This necessity arises from the fact that the result of the preceding operating steps is used in the new operating step and therefore influences it.
An example of one processing operation composed of a multiplicity of operating steps is the processing of a credit application illustrated in FIG. 12. FIG. 12 gives a rough summary of the individual operating steps and the roles of the people involved in processing the granting of credit. In total three different processing roles are involved in the processing. The people responsible for the care of customer relations are called advisers. Advisers work at the “front”, in “advice” and in “marketing”. Credit decisions—if they cannot be decided immediately by advisers—are ultimately made by credit officers (COs). Credit officers are often also designated as decision-makers. Finally, ultimate handling—drawing up the contract, payments, etc.—is undertaken by specialists in the credit services (CS) organisation.
In the advisory interview held by the adviser with the customer (the opposite party), among other things the customer's credit needs are determined. The adviser registers the credit applications determined in the advisory interview. If there are changes, with hardly any or no risk attached, to existing credit commitments, to minimise the amount of work a full risk assessment of the customer's position (full decision) is dispensed with. Low-risk changes of this kind are identified by performing a prior assessment (triage). The prior assessment is done for each application. If it is possible to dispense with a full decision for all the applications of an opposite party combined in a submission, they can be directly supplemented by the information relevant to the handling and released for handling. New transactions, on the other hand, always require a full decision. Financing potential (with commercial customers) or affordability (with private customers) applies here as a measure of the credit standing of a customer.
For the decision as to whether and under what conditions the desired credit can be granted to a customer, the credit application (possibly consisting of several individual applications)—together with the, in some circumstances, already existing credit commitment—is balanced against the creditworthiness and the securities, in other words the credit standing of the customer. To assess the customer's applications and in particular his creditworthiness, value is attached to an overall customer profile. Logically the credit commitment of the later contracting partner does not effect the assessment in isolation. Rather, the legal bodies legally or commercially associated with the customer and, if available, their applications are also involved in the assessment. All the customers who need to be involved in the creditworthiness analysis constitute the “opposite party to be submitted”. Simultaneously running applications of an opposite party form a submission. Only one open (undecided) submission per opposite party is permitted at a time. Applications with no prospect are excluded from the further credit granting process from the start by means of a checklist.
The adviser is supported in his decision by a decision plan defined in advance. The registered figures and responses have an effect on this and they end in a categorisation of the submission (in white, grey or black), In a “white” decision, with sufficient authority the adviser can approve the submission at once. The responsibility for the decision is in this case entirely that of the adviser. Once the adviser has approved the submission, handling of the credit granting process is continued immediately. If there is a grey or black system decision or if there is too little authority a CO decision is necessary. If the adviser endorses the submission he forwards it immediately to a CO with his reasons.
The CO analyses the submission using the information registered by the adviser, his assessments and any enclosures. The extent of the registration and the documents to be supplied with it are configured so that the CO can decide on the submission as far as possible without referring questions back to the adviser.
The CO can approve the submission unchanged, approve it with changes, approve it with conditions, refuse or reject it. If the adviser's assessment is incomplete or if it obviously does not represent the current view of the customer or his securities, the CO rejects the submission. If a submission comprises both uncritical applications, which the CO can simply approve, and applications, the approval of which he wishes to link to conditions, he can also make his decision per application instead of for the entire submission. Moreover, the CO can also set measures and deadlines which the adviser must put into practice. The CO then returns the entire submission to the adviser.
In a next processing step the adviser then has to put into practice or accept the CO decision. This step depends on the CO's decision. If he has approved the submission (or individual applications) unchanged, the decision is concluded and the adviser continues to complete the handling. If the CO has approved the submission with changes, the adviser must confirm the CO's changes before “completion of handling” or can put in an application for reconsideration. If the CO has approved the submission with conditions, the adviser puts the conditions into practice in consultation with the customer. If the adviser or the customer does not agree with the conditions, the adviser can put in an application for reconsideration. If the CO has refused the submission and the adviser does not agree with the CO's refusal, in this case too he puts in an application for reconsideration. Otherwise the adviser confirms the CO's refusal decision. If the CO has rejected the submission, the adviser can draw up a new submission. The applications and latest adaptations to the customer profile drawn up as part of the rejected submission are adopted into the new submission.
If the adviser has put into practice all the CO's conditions or if he puts in an application for reconsideration for the entire submission or individual applications from it, he returns the entire submission to the CO. If some of the applications in the submission have already been approved, these can be completed for handling and put in for handling if this has been approved by the CO. If the submission or parts of it have been approved, the adviser establishes the concrete products and conditions, sets the prices and supplements additional information which is not relevant to the decision, but is relevant to the handling. In this the adviser keeps within the framework approved for the decision. The specialist in credit services finally handles the individual applications.
With the advance of electronic data processing many workflows so far executed manually are being imitated in a computer-aided environment. Within the framework of the computer-aided workflows, users navigate through a multiplicity of screen pages on which they are requested to input data or confirm data. It has emerged that with conventional electronic implementation of the workflow illustrated in FIG. 12 and similarly complex workflows the system response times are frequently unacceptable. This applies above all if many user accesses take place in the case of large banks and other large companies and an extensive already existing data pool is to be used.
The object of the invention is therefore to provide an easily scalable system and method which permit run-time-optimised processing even of complex computer-aided workflows.